I think its an absolute travesty, when all that the Royal family stood for has now become a huge joke. Who cares if Charles marries Camilla, he lost all respect from British people when he treated Princess Diana the way he did.
For the Queen to allow Charles to marry a divorced woman, who has obviously no morals or credibility anyway, and expect us to accept him to succeed his mother to the throne then his is sadly mistaken.
I feel sorry for his sons, how dare Charles get on his moral highground about the people he is supposed to serve, and wonder why we dont support him over his wedding to someone none of us have ever liked.

Tell me it isn't true! According to my newspaper this morning, 1.46 million Australians watched the Charles/Camilla wedding.

That's fifty percent more than tuned in to either the pope's funeral or the wedding of Mary Donaldson, Crown Princess Mary of Denmark.

C'mon Australia, where are your priorities?!

What do you mean Pericles?

27% of us are Catholics, most of us wouldn't have known that Denmark was a monarchy before our Mary, and all of us will someday have King Charles III as our head of state.

Seems like we've got our priorities spot on.

Pericles, I'm sure Mary is a sweet girl and all, but why should Australians be so parochial as to only watch celebrity weddings involving people born on the same island as them? It's a big world, and I don't see why we should be afraid to be part of it.

Meanwhile, republicans in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK have apparently formed a new organisation through which they will work together to try and abolish one of the things they have in common. The irony is delicious.

The exclamation mark at the end was supposed to indicate a high level of TIC (tongue in cheek).

Very little that went before would have led anyone to expect this level of disparity in the public's interest in the three events. Given the acres of newsprint dedicated to the demise of the pope, and the endless womens' mags stuffed to the gills with adulation of our "Slip Inn" princess, it would have been reasonable to expect a reversal of the numbers.

I was comparing and contrasting these journalistic representations with the public's actual reaction to these events, a contrast that I found amusing.

Mario and Abby - why does Charles need the approval of you or anyone else. Just because you do not like Camilla does that mean Charles cannot fall in love and marry her. Last time I checked, universal acceptance of a marriage wasn't necessary - only that a man and woman wanted to spend their life together.
It amzaes me that so many people have feelings of such hate against Charles, the wedding and the royal family in general.
I voted for a republic, it didn't get up so what. Wasn't Chuck's fault.
It is funny how some people are puzzled by the public emotions of Catholics following the death of the pope yet the same people have such virulent, emotional hatred for the royals.
Republic or monarchy makes know difference to the day to day life of Australians.
I haven't seen Charles object to any Australians getting married. so why should we of him.

t.u.s

Greg Barnes is right to point out the various archaic and redundant 'rules' surrounding the Monarchy, but he should avoid being seen to exploit public ill-feeling towards Charles as an individual.

Though a staunch republican I find personal attacks on the various royals to be exploitative and counter-productive. There are plenty of sound reasons why Charles should never be King of Australia without rubbishing the man.

I neither like nor dislike Charles as a person, but I do have some sympathy over the fact that his love for Camilla had been thwarted by institutional red tape and ended up strangling two make-do marriages.

The Church's opposition to divorce must surely crumble soon. No one should be condemned to endure a miserable mistaken marriage.

Mr Barnes - I believe it was Andrew Parker-Bowles who was her Majesty's Silver Stick In Waiting (he was also Princess Anne's but that's another topic).
I don't believe the number of wedding TV viewers means anything other than there was little alternative on FTA TV, and that all women like to look at expensive hatting and frocking. I watched every minute of the King of Jordan's funeral on cable because it was fascinating - doesn't mean I am in favour of Jordan in any way at all.
re Our Republic - I voted to maintain our Monarchic Constitution. I did not vote this way because I approve of the shenanigans of under-educated aristocrats. Show me a President of any country who behaves in a totally moral manner - the French Pres had a love child, Marcos stole all the money, don't mention Clinton, Kennedy or the Roosevelts. Do we need that? at least her Maj leaves us alone.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm not sure that all Australian's wish for our head of state to just "leave us alone" (from above). The vote for a republic was acually trying to change this.

There are fundemental problems when our first-world country's head of state is only 'ceremonial' or 'in-title' only. And we have serious issues when people have begun to accept this as the norm. Just because its happening now doesn't make it right.

To me it is somewhat offensive for "brownie" to simply state an issue but not address it. Don't you have a problem with the Queen not doing anything? If so, what is your suggestion?

So in Brownie's senario we get a president that is the same as the Queen...remind me Brownie...what have we lost?
We have gained and Australian citizen that isn't just a representative. That is reason enough.